CRBC News
Culture
Society
Security
Health
Conflict
Science
Technology
Politics
Environment
Lifestyle
Economy

Supreme Court Temporarily Pauses Ruling Against Texas Congressional Maps Ahead of Filing Deadline

The Supreme Court issued an administrative stay that temporarily halts a lower court ruling invalidating Texas' summer redistricting, with Justice Samuel Alito pausing the order while the high court considers the state's request for longer relief. Texas argues the maps were drawn for partisan advantage, not race; a three-judge panel had found the plan to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in a 2-1 decision. A strong dissent criticized the majority, and the dispute occurs amid a nationwide push to redraw House districts before next year’s midterms. The Court must now decide whether to extend the stay or take the case before the Dec. 8 candidate filing deadline.

12:28 PM, 11/22/2025Politics

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted an administrative stay that temporarily suspends a lower court order which had invalidated Texas' redrawn congressional maps just days before the candidate filing deadline for next year's primaries.

Justice Samuel Alito issued the administrative stay after attorneys for Texas asked the Court to allow the maps adopted over the summer to remain in effect while the state seeks longer-term relief. Texas has asked the Court to extend the stay through Dec. 1; officials noted the candidate filing deadline is Dec. 8. Alito directed the plaintiffs who challenged the maps to file a response by Monday afternoon.

What the lower court found

A three-judge federal panel earlier this week blocked Texas from using the new maps in a 2-1 decision. The majority, in an opinion written by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, concluded the maps were an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The panel pointed to a majority-White Democratic district that the court said should have changed more if partisanship — rather than race — had been the driving consideration.

The judges also cited a Justice Department letter warning that four existing districts might be unlawful “coalition” districts — areas in which non-Hispanic White voters are in the minority but no single racial group has a majority — and said some state officials appeared to respond to that guidance.

Texas' defense

In filings to the Supreme Court, Texas rejected the claim that race motivated the redistricting and insisted the process was partisan. The state argued the chief GOP mapmaker relied on partisan data and that the lower court relied on speculation and unfair inferences about intent. Texas warned the injunction could cause disarray if maps were changed during the candidate filing window.

"From the start, everyone recognized that the purpose of Texas's redistricting effort was Republican political advantage," the state noted, quoting critics who framed the changes as partisan.

Dissent and nationwide context

Judge Jerry Smith — the dissenting judge — issued a sharply worded opinion criticizing the majority, calling the lead opinion an exercise in legal error and using pointed language that drew attention. The dispute over Texas' maps is part of a broader national effort by Republican-led states to reshape congressional districts ahead of next year's midterm elections, with other states also moving districts to favor one party or another.

With the administrative stay in place, the lower court's ruling is on hold while the Supreme Court decides whether to extend the stay, take the case for full review, or allow the injunction to stand before the Dec. 8 filing deadline. The decision coming next will determine which maps candidates must use as they prepare for upcoming primaries.

Similar Articles

Trending